An investigation into vocabulary learning strategies employed by the second-Year non-english major students at thai nguyen university of agriculture and forestry
This study investigates on the most frequently used vocabulary learning strategies of the secondyear non-English major students at Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry. The
research method approach of the study was descriptive method and a questionnaire was used as the
main data collection instrument. The major findings of the research showed that the students of
Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry employed a wide range of vocabulary
learning strategies. Determination strategies were the most frequently used strategies while
metacognitive strategies were preferred the least. It also revealed that students favored
monolingual dictionaries, guessing from context and asking teachers or friends for meaning and
concentrated mainly on the memorization of spoken form to consolidate the meaning of new word.
Through these findings, some implications and recommendations are promisingly suggested for
vocabulary learning
ctionary 100 3.50 1.049 H Word lists 100 3.39 .815 M Guess the meaning from textual context 100 3.32 1.034 M Analyze any available pictures or gestures 100 3.09 1.111 M Analyze parts of speech 100 2.99 1.059 M Analyze affixes and roots 100 2.82 .936 M Flash cards 100 2.77 .941 M Monolingual dictionaries 99 2.17 1.134 L It is apparently seen in table 2 that the most use strategy was bilingual dictionary with mean score of 3.5 ranked as high level of use. On the contrary, monolingual dictionary was reported at low frequency level (M=2.17, SD= 1.134). The rest were reported being employed at medium use. Among them guess the meaning from textual context and word lists also got more favor than the others with the mean score was 3.32 and 3.39 respectively. The reason might be that using bilingual dictionary, word lists and guessing from the textual context often took time, monolingual dictionary, on the other hand, got the lowest attention from the student. In fact, the elementary students are often familiar with using bilingual dictionaries because it is convenient and easy for them to understand the meanings rather than taking time in monolingual dictionary. Research studies, moreover, showed that monolingual dictionary got more preferred by high achievers than low achievers. This strategy was very helpful for high level of learners especially for the English majors. This finding was similar to the results of Schmitt‟s [3] study among Japanese students who also favor the use of bilingual dictionary. It showed that bilingual dictionary was the most used strategies of all. 3.2.2 Social strategies Social strategies, in general, seemed to get less prefer than the other strategies with only three strategies were ranked at medium use and the rest were low frequency. As shown in table 3, social strategies were not frequently used by the students. Asking teachers or friends for L1 translation was the most frequently used strategy while interacting with native speakers was the least frequently used. This fact can be easily understood because students were not afraid to ask their friends or teachers for their help in L1 translation. The students, on the other hand, did want to interact with native speakers although they did not have many chances. That was the objective reason why few of them employed the strategy of interacting with native speakers. Pham Thi Thu Trang TNU Journal of Science and Technology 199(06): 31- 36 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 34 Table 3. Social strategies: Means and Standard Deviations N Mean Std. Deviation Strategy use Ask classmates for meaning 99 3.12 .982 M Ask teacher for an L1 translation 100 2.93 .946 M Ask teacher for paraphrase or synonym of a new word 100 2.67 .943 M Study and practice meaning in a group 100 2.45 .978 L Ask teacher for a sentence including the new word 100 2.41 .944 L Teacher checks students‟ flash cards or word lists for accuracy 100 2.33 .933 L Discover new meaning through group work activities 100 2.21 .946 L Interact with native speaker 100 1.79 .967 L 3.2.3. Memory strategies Table 4. Memory strategies: Means and Standard Deviations N Mean Std. Deviation Strategy use Say new word aloud when studying 100 3.49 1.000 M Study the sound of a word 100 3.38 .896 M Image word form 100 3.11 1.063 M Image word‟s meaning 100 3.06 .886 M Affixes and roots (remembering) 100 3.05 .999 M Part of speech (remembering) 100 3.05 1.009 M Associate the word with its synonyms and antonyms 100 3.03 .926 M Paraphrase the word‟s meaning 100 2.91 1.055 M Study the spelling of a word 100 2.87 .991 M Use keyword method 100 2.86 1.110 M Use new word in sentences 100 2.85 .936 M Group words together to study them 100 2.85 1.123 M Associate the word with its coordinates 100 2.84 1.002 M Learn the words of an idiom together 100 2.80 1.015 M Study word with a pictorial presentation of its meaning 100 2.79 .957 M Connect word to a personal experience 100 2.74 1.060 M Use physical action when learning a word 100 2.53 1.049 M Underline initial letter of the word 100 2.35 1.114 L Use „scales‟ for gradable adjectives 100 2.32 1.014 L Group words together within a storyline 100 2.15 1.067 L Use semantic maps 100 2.01 .937 L It can be seen in table 4 that most of the strategies employed to consolidate the word in the memory were used at medium level (mean score from 2.53 to 3.49). No high use of VLS by these students in order to retain the knowledge of newly-learned vocabulary items. Seventeen VLS in this category were reported being employed at medium frequency level, whereas four VLS were reported at the low frequency level. It is implied that besides using strategies to discover a word‟s meaning, the learners also used some strategies to consolidate it in memory. Pham Thi Thu Trang TNU Journal of Science and Technology 199(06): 31- 36 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 35 Table 5. Cognitive strategies: Means and Standard Deviations N Mean Std. Deviation Strategy use Take note in class 100 3.93 .935 H Verbal repetition 100 3.40 .995 M Written repetition 100 3.36 .980 M Use the vocabulary section in your textbook 100 3.22 1.011 M Keep a vocabulary notebook 100 2.97 1.235 M Listen to tape of word lists 100 2.72 .965 M Word lists 100 2.64 1.020 M Flashcards 100 2.51 1.193 M Put English labels on physical objects 100 2.26 1.169 L Table 6. Metacognitive strategies: Means and Standard Deviations N Mean Std. Deviation Strategy use Use English-language media (songs, movies, newscasts, etc.) 100 3.05 .947 M Continue to study word over time 100 2.65 .903 M Testing oneself with word tests 100 2.46 1.049 L Skip or pass new word 100 1.90 .810 L 3.2.4. Cognitive strategies The information in table 5, in general, showed that cognitive strategies were used at medium level. Only taking note in class was selected as the highest frequency use with mean score was 3.93 and the lowest mean score was put English labels on physical objects with M=2.26. Cognitive strategies were preferred by the students when every strategy was used at medium level. The most strategies use were taking note in class, verbal and written repetition, studying the vocabulary in the textbook, keeping a vocabulary notebook. These are very simple and feasible activities for the students, so that they should be encouraged to use them as often as a habit. 3.2.5. Metacognitive strategies Four metacognitive strategies in consolidating words were shown in table 6 with two medium use strategies and two low use strategies. In a whole, metacognitive strategies were not frequently used. Mean values of this group ranged from 1.90 to 3.05. Most of the students used television, radio, newspapers, magazines, computers, etc. with quite high frequency. The public internet has become more popular, so that students should make use of this kind of modern technology for the purpose of learning English in general and for learning English vocabulary in particular. It was hoped that there would be a large proportion of the students continuing to study words overtime or study words every day with high frequency; however, a small number of them always did this. Teachers should know this and think of ways to encourage, even request their students to employ this strategy. 4. Conclusions and recommendations 4.1. Conclusion The findings from the study proved that second year students of English at TUAF were medium strategies users. Among the strategies used to discovery and consolidate the meaning of new word, the students used determination strategies most frequently while metacognitive strategies were used least frequently. Among fifty strategies, most of the students used these strategies in the Pham Thi Thu Trang TNU Journal of Science and Technology 199(06): 31- 36 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 36 medium level; about one fourth of them used those ones in the low level, and only two items (Use bilingual dictionary and Take notes in class) was in the high level. These strategies, on the other hand, were considered to be simple and support for individual learning. Thus, some practical suggestions would be made to help students learn vocabulary more effectively. 4.2. Recommendations Firstly, some other aspects which should be further explored include students‟ socioeconomic or academic backgrounds, or attitude and motivation towards vocabulary learning. Secondly, there should be a greater variety of instruments produced to elicit students‟ VLS of different language learners in different contexts. Thirdly, there is a need for future research to investigate a larger research population consists of students studying in different years (1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th ) to explore if this aspect associates with students‟ reported choices of strategy use for vocabulary learning. Finally, the present study only concentrated on the current situation of vocabulary learning and did not take into account the fact that learning strategy use changes over time when the learner‟s skills develop and mature. Thus, a longitudinal study of vocabulary learning strategies training long-term effects should be considered. REFERENCES [1]. Schmitt, N., Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual, London, England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. [2]. Oxford, R. L., Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know, New York: Newbury House, 1990. [3]. Schmitt, N., “Vocabulary learning strategies”, In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (Eds), Vocabulary: description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 237-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
File đính kèm:
- 591_1818_1_pb_9868_2143972.pdf